Advertisement

The effect of programming on primary school students’ mathematical and scientific understanding: educational use of mBot

  • José-Manuel Sáez-LópezEmail author
  • Maria-Luisa Sevillano-García
  • Esteban Vazquez-Cano
Research Article

Abstract

This study highlights the importance of an educational design that includes robotics and programming through a visual programming language as a means to enable students to improve substantially their understanding of the elements of logic and mathematics. Gaining an understanding of computational concepts as well as a high degree of student participation and commitment emphasize the effectiveness of introducing robotics and visual programming based on active methodologies in primary education. Implementation of this design provides sixth-grade elementary education students with activities that integrate programming and robotics in sciences and mathematics; these practices allow students to understand coding, motion, engines, sequences and conditionals. A quasi-experimental design, descriptive analysis and participant observation were applied across various dimensions to 93 sixth-grade students in four primary education schools. Programming and robotics were integrated in one didactic unit of mathematics and another in sciences. Statistically significant improvements were achieved in the understanding of mathematical concepts and in the acquisition of computational concepts, based on an active pedagogical practice that instills motivation, enthusiasm, commitment, fun and interest in the content studied.

Keywords

Computational thinking Elementary education Programming and programming languages Robotics Teaching/learning strategies 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aiken, L. R. (1980). Content validity and reliability of single items or questionnaires. Educational and Psychologial Measurement, 40, 955–959.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448004000419.Google Scholar
  2. Ausubel, D. (1978). In defense of advance organizers: A reply to the critics. Review of Educational Research, 48, 251–257.Google Scholar
  3. Barak, M., & Zadok, Y. (2009). Robotics projects and learning concepts in science, technology and problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 289–307.Google Scholar
  4. Baytak, A., & Land, S. M. (2011). An investigation of the artifacts and process of constructing computer games about environmental science in a fifth grade classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 765–782.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9184-z.Google Scholar
  5. Calder, N. (2010). Using scratch: An integrated problem-solving approach to mathematical thinking. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 15(4), 9–14.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, G., Shen, J., Barth-Cohen, L., Jiang, S., Huang, X., & Eltoukhy, M. (2017). Assessing elementary students’ computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computers & Education, 109, 162–175.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.001.Google Scholar
  7. Chiang, F. K., & Qin, L. (2018). A pilot study to assess the impacts of game-based construction learning. Using scratch, on students’ multi-step equation-solving performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(6), 803–814.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1412990.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, J., Rogers, M. P., Spradling, C., & Pais, J. (2013). What, no canoes? Lessons learned while hosting a scratch summer camp. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 28, 204–210.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  10. Fagin, B., & Merkle, L. (2003). Measuring the effectiveness of robots in teaching computer science. In SIGCSE ‘03 proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 35(1)).Google Scholar
  11. Fletcher, G., & Lu, J. (2009). Human computing skills: Rethinking the K-12 experience. Communications of the ACM-Association for Computing Machinery-CACM, 52(2), 23–25.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1461928.1461938.Google Scholar
  12. Freeman, A., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., & Hall Giesinger, C. (2017). NMC/CoSN horizon report: 2017 K-12 Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from https://www.epiphanymgmt.com/Downloads/horizon%20report.pdf.Google Scholar
  13. Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1988). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. Madrid: Ediciones Morata.Google Scholar
  14. Grant, M. (2011). Learning, beliefs, and products: Students’ perspectives with project-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning.  https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1254.Google Scholar
  15. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12, a review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051.Google Scholar
  16. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  17. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Han, B., Bae, Y., & Park, J. (2016). The effect of mathematics achievement variables on scratch programming activities of elementary school students. International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications, 10(12), 21–30.Google Scholar
  19. International Society for Technology in Education and the Computer Science Teachers Association. (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking for K-12. http://csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CurrFiles/CompThinkingFlyer.pdf.
  20. Ishii, N., Suzuki, Y., Fujiyoshi, H., Fujii, T., & Kozawa, M. (2007). A framework for designing and improving learning environments fostering creativity. Psicologia Escolar e Educacional, 11, 59–69.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC horizon report: 2014 K-12 edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2014-nmc-horizon-report-he-EN.pdf.
  22. Jonassen, D. H. (1977). Approaches to the study of visual literacy: A brief survey for media personnel. Pennsylvania Media Review, 11, 15–18.Google Scholar
  23. Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2014). Connected code: Why children need to learn programming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kanda, T., Hirano, T., Eaton, D., & Ishiguro, H. (2004). Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: A field trial. Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 19, 61–84.Google Scholar
  25. Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R. B., Doshi, P., & Thai, C. N. (2015). Robotics to promote elementary education pre-service teachers’ STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Computers & Education, 91, 14–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.08.005.Google Scholar
  26. Kucuk, S., & Sisman, B. (2017). Behavioral patterns of elementary students and teachers in one-to-one robotics instruction. Computers & Education, 111, 31–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.002.Google Scholar
  27. Kwon, D. Y., Kim, H. S., Shim, J. K., & Lee, W. G. (2012). Algorithmic bricks: A tangible robot programming tool for elementary school students. Education, IEEE Transactions, 55(4), 474–479.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2012.2190071.Google Scholar
  28. Lambert, L., & Guiffre, H. (2009). Computer science outreach in an elementary school. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 24(3), 118–124.Google Scholar
  29. Lee, Y. J. (2011). Empowering teachers to create educational software: A constructivist approach utilizing Etoys, pair programming and cognitive apprenticeship. Computers & Education, 56(2), 527–538.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.018.Google Scholar
  30. Lin, J. M. C., Yen, L. Y., Yang, M. C., & Chen, C. F. (2005). Teaching computer programming in elementary schools: A pilot study. In National educational computing conference. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.83.3706&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
  31. Maxcy, S. J. (2003). Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: The search for multiple modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 51–89). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Maya, I., Pearson, J. N., Tapia, T., Wherfel, Q. M., & Reese, G. (2015). Supporting all learners in school-wide computational thinking: A cross-case qualitative analysis. Computers & Education, 82, 263–279.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.022.Google Scholar
  33. Mazzoni, E., & Benvenuti, M. (2015). A robot-partner for preschool children learning english using socio-cognitive conflict. Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 474–485.Google Scholar
  34. Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N. L., & Bellisimo, Y. (2006). The effectiveness of problem-based instruction: A comparative study of instructional methods and student characteristics. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(2), 49–69.  https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1026.Google Scholar
  35. Oddie, A., Hazlewood, P., Blakeway, S., & Whitfield, A. (2010). Introductory problem solving and programming: Robotics vs traditional approaches. Innovations in Teaching & Learning in Information & Computer Sciences.  https://doi.org/10.11120/ital.2010.09020011.Google Scholar
  36. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  37. Parmaxi, A., & Zaphiris, P. (2014). The evolvement of constructionism: An overview of the literature. In International conference on learning and collaboration technologies (pp. 452–461). Springer International Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07482-5_43.
  38. Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2004). Bringing engineering to elementary school. Journal of STEM Education, 5, 17–28.Google Scholar
  39. Rusk, N., Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Granlund, M. P. (2008). New pathways into robotics: Strategies for broadening participation. Journal of Science & Educational Technology, 17, 59–69.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9082-2.Google Scholar
  40. Sáez-López, J. M., Román-González, M., & Vázquez-Cano, E. (2016). Visual programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school. A two year case study using scratch in five schools. Computers & Education, 97, 129–141.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.003.Google Scholar
  41. Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies, 18, 351–380.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9240-x.Google Scholar
  42. Skelton, G., Pang, Q., Yin, J., Williams, B. J., & Zheng, W. (2010). Introducing engineering concepts to public school students and teachers: Peer-based learning through robotics summer camp. Review of Higher Education and Self-Learning, 3, 1–7.Google Scholar
  43. Spolaôr, N., & Vavassori-Benitti, F. B. (2017). Robotics applications grounded in learning theories on tertiary education: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 112, 97–107.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.001.Google Scholar
  44. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Chapter 6: Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Weng-yi Cheng, R., Shui-fong, L., & Chung-yan Chan, J. (2008). When high achievers and low achievers work in the same group: The roles of group heterogeneity and processes in project-based learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 205–221.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000709907X218160.Google Scholar
  46. Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Spanish National University of Distance Education (UNED)MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations